Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 5 5600F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

This combo ranks at position 1585 out of 2888 tested configurations in Control, placing it in the lower-middle segment of the database. The ranking reflects a pairing of a modern six-core CPU with an older high-end GPU, where the graphics card's age shows in demanding scenes, though the processor holds its own in maintaining frame pacing across all tested settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1585 out of 2888 tested combos places it in the 55th percentile of all recorded configurations for Control. This is a mid-pack result, indicating that while the system is capable of running the game, many other pairings achieve higher average frame rates. The CPU itself sits in the 85th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 36945, while the GPU ranks in the 58th percentile with an average score of 15548. The discrepancy between CPU and GPU percentiles suggests that the graphics card is the limiting factor in this pairing—the processor has headroom that the GPU cannot fully exploit.

In terms of CPU rivals, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F is essentially tied with the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (deltaPct 0), slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (-0.2), and marginally ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (-0.4) and Intel Core i9-12900T (-0.5). These negligible differences indicate that the CPU's compute performance is not the bottleneck in Control, as even a 0.5% variance among rivals would not translate into meaningful FPS differences at the settings tested.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1080 Ti's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (deltaPct 0.2), AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (-0.8), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (1.7), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (1.7). The positive deltaPct values for the RTX 2060 and GTX 580 mean the 1080 Ti scores higher than those cards, while the negative delta for the Radeon Pro W5500 indicates that card scores slightly higher. These rivalries are close, but the 1080 Ti's position in the 58th percentile shows it remains competitive in raw compute, though its age limits features like ray tracing that Control can leverage.

GPU Role

The GTX 1080 Ti brings 11 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 352-bit bus, delivering 484.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is well-suited for Control's high-resolution textures, as the 11 GB capacity prevents VRAM overflow at 4K even on Ultra settings. The GPU's base clock runs at 1481 MHz with a boost clock of 1582 MHz, while memory operates at 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective). These clocks are modest by modern standards, and the Pascal architecture lacks dedicated ray tracing cores, meaning any ray-traced effects in Control would fall back to compute shaders—a scenario not reflected in these measured results.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 88 raster output units, producing a pixel rate of 139.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 354.4 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance stands at 11.34 TFLOPS for FP32, which is respectable but dated. The 16 nm process node from TSMC packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, with a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². Power draw is rated at 250 W, requiring a 600 W suggested PSU, and the card uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup.

In Control, the GPU's role is dominant, as evidenced by the FPS scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 133 FPS, but this drops to 43 FPS at 4K High—a 67% reduction that points squarely at the GPU's rendering limits. The 11 GB VRAM is never saturated, as even the most demanding 4K Ultra run stays within memory capacity, so the bottleneck is raw rasterization throughput, not memory allocation.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At 1080p, the combo delivers 133 FPS on Low, 95 FPS on Medium, 84 FPS on High, and 73 FPS on Ultra. Moving to 1440p, those numbers drop to 101 FPS on Low, 72 FPS on Medium, 64 FPS on High, and 55 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, the figures fall further to 68 FPS on Low, 48 FPS on Medium, 43 FPS on High, and 37 FPS on Ultra.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K is steepest at Low settings: 133 FPS drops to 68 FPS, a 49% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 73 FPS to 37 FPS, a 49% reduction as well. This uniform percentage decline across settings indicates that the GPU is the consistent limiting factor—the CPU's performance is sufficient to feed the GPU even at lower resolutions, but the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity cap the frame rate regardless of settings.

The delta between Medium and High at each resolution is notable: at 1080p, Medium runs at 95 FPS versus High's 84 FPS (an 11 FPS gap); at 1440p, the gap widens to 8 FPS (72 vs 64); at 4K, it narrows to 5 FPS (48 vs 43). This suggests that the transition from Medium to High introduces additional shading work that the GPU struggles with more at higher resolutions, where pixel count amplifies the cost of each effect. Conversely, the jump from High to Ultra costs 11 FPS at 1080p, 9 FPS at 1440p, and 6 FPS at 4K, showing that Ultra's extra features are relatively cheaper at lower pixel counts.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset at 1440p offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1440p Medium, the combo achieves 72 FPS average with a minimum of 61 FPS and maximum of 82 FPS, providing a smooth experience above the 60 FPS threshold. The 61 FPS minimum ensures that even demanding scenes stay fluid, and the 82 FPS ceiling leaves headroom for monitor refresh rates up to 75 Hz.

For 1080p users, Ultra at 73 FPS is playable, but Medium at 95 FPS provides a significantly smoother experience with only a modest visual trade-off. The 1080p Medium run shows a minimum of 80 FPS and maximum of 109 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate displays. If visual fidelity is paramount, 1080p Ultra at 73 FPS remains viable, though the 20 FPS penalty over Medium may not justify the added effects.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. The best option is Low at 68 FPS, which maintains playability but sacrifices most visual enhancements. Medium at 48 FPS is borderline, with a minimum of 41 FPS that could cause noticeable stutter in combat sequences. High and Ultra at 43 FPS and 37 FPS respectively are not recommended for 4K gaming, as frame rates dip below the 40 FPS threshold where action games like Control become less responsive. Users targeting 4K should stick to Low settings or consider reducing resolution to 1440p.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: 1440p Medium provides the best experience, with an average of 72 FPS, a minimum of 61 FPS, and a maximum of 82 FPS. This offers a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while maintaining decent visual quality.

Q: Can this system handle 4K in Control?

A: At 4K Low, the combo achieves 68 FPS average, which is playable. However, 4K Medium drops to 48 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS, and 4K High/Ultra fall to 43 FPS and 37 FPS respectively, which are below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: How much FPS do I lose going from 1080p to 1440p?

A: At Medium settings, the drop is from 95 FPS at 1080p to 72 FPS at 1440p, a 23 FPS reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 73 FPS to 55 FPS, an 18 FPS reduction.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 58th percentile. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a consistent 49% reduction, indicating the GPU's rendering limits dominate.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 41 FPS at 4K Medium settings. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 61 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, the minimum is 80 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1080 Ti compare to the RTX 2060 in raw benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1080 Ti scores 1.7% higher than the RTX 2060 in average benchmark score (15548 vs 15290), according to the nearestRivals data. This suggests the 1080 Ti remains competitive in raw compute, though it lacks the RTX 2060's newer features.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It operates at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts up to 4.00 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache, providing ample fast storage for game data. Memory support includes dual-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and the CPU supports ECC memory—a feature not typically found in consumer gaming chips.

In Control, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU, as the game is heavily graphics-bound. The 5600F's single-thread performance is strong, with a PassMark single-thread score of 2872, which ensures that the game's main thread—often the bottleneck in action-adventure titles—is well-served. The multithreaded score of 19236 across twelve threads handles background tasks and physics calculations without issue. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 36945, places it well above the median, meaning it can easily feed the GTX 1080 Ti at all resolutions tested.

The CPU's nearest rivals show negligible performance differences: the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 scores 36938 (deltaPct 0), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018 (-0.2), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093 (-0.4), and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112 (-0.5). These sub-1% variations confirm that the 5600F's compute capability is not a differentiator in Control's FPS results—any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates with the same GPU. The data shows that upgrading the CPU would yield no measurable improvement in this game, whereas upgrading the GPU would directly increase FPS across all settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers the following average frame rates: 133 FPS on Low, 95 FPS on Medium, 84 FPS on High, and 73 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting records a minimum of 80 FPS and a maximum of 109 FPS, providing the most complete data point. The 1080p results show a clear progression where each settings tier costs between 9 and 11 FPS on average, with Low offering nearly double the frame rate of Ultra.

At 2560x1440, average FPS figures are 101 on Low, 72 on Medium, 64 on High, and 55 on Ultra. The Medium setting shows a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. The 1440p results indicate a 24% reduction from 1080p at Low settings, which is less than the pixel count increase (78% more pixels) would suggest—this is because the GPU is already near its limits at 1080p Low, so resolution scaling has a disproportionate impact.

At 3840x2160, average FPS drops to 68 on Low, 48 on Medium, 43 on High, and 37 on Ultra. The Medium setting records a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. The 4K results show that even Low settings cannot maintain 60 FPS, with a 49% reduction from 1080p Low. The gap between Medium and High narrows to just 5 FPS at 4K, suggesting that the GPU's shading units are saturated, and additional settings have diminishing returns on visual quality versus frame rate cost.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the best data granularity with both minimum and maximum FPS recorded, allowing for a clearer picture of frame pacing. The 1080p Medium run (95 FPS average, 80 min, 109 max) and 1440p Medium run (72 FPS average, 61 min, 82 max) are the most playable configurations, while 4K Medium (48 FPS average, 41 min, 56 max) sits on the edge of playability. The Ultra settings at 4K produce an average of 37 FPS, which is below the 40 FPS threshold for smooth action gameplay, making that configuration unsuitable for serious play.